French court savages "three-strikes" law, tosses it out

France's groundbreaking "three strikes" law that would disconnect repeat Internet file-swappers has been censured by the country's Constitutional Council. "Innocent until proven guilty" still means something in France.

Originally posted by atergo:Maybe courts here in the US will take the example......

No, probably not

Well, on the positive side, it is good to see a piece of legislature that has been touted as the prime example of 'progress' by the RIAA, MPAA, and the IFPI be shutdown. This provides some framework for other governments to realize that the punishment simply does not fit the crime in these matters.

Originally posted by xeromist:'Pass my law or I'm quitting'???? What kind of childish twit do they have in office over there?

In other news France's Cultural Minister Christina Albanel died today after holding her breath and stamping her foot until she asphyxiated herself.

what you expect . see who's the boss .

those people that vote for the laws should all resign . since they all forget the basic of french Constitutional . I don't think french need these of people . and the president not only forget the nation Constitutional , also try to against it is same as against the whole nation .such person do not have any rights to be the president anymore.

Just thinking... shouldn't passing unconstitutional legislation (or even creating it and bringing it for a vote) be a criminal act? No repercussions for making this law except that it's now thrown out? I guess maybe the downside is that they may not be voted back in... but messing with fundamental rights is scary stuff and they played with them far too lightly.

Originally posted by macduff:Ummm... "innocent until proven guilty" and "three strikes laws" are two completely different things. "Three strikes" means you've been found guilty three times.

No, because at no point during the process were the courts to be involved and the appeal process involved the user proving they did not share the files rather than the accuser being forced to prove they did.

Originally posted by macduff:Ummm... "innocent until proven guilty" and "three strikes laws" are two completely different things. "Three strikes" means you've been found guilty three times.

You're thinking of American three-strikes laws against things like drugs.

Three-strikes in the sense of internet does NOT mean you've been found guilty three times. It means you've been accused three times. The accuser (typically the record label or film studio) says you did it, therefore you did it, and you have a strike against you. This entire process is carried out outside the court system - there is no judge, jury, or defense, and at no point do accusers have to present any evidence to anyone.

This is exactly why the European Parliament and even the French Constitutional Council have struck it down. Both have stated on the record that it's a violation of human rights to cut off someone's access to the internet without a trial or the presentation of any evidence.

Originally posted by macduff:Ummm... "innocent until proven guilty" and "three strikes laws" are two completely different things. "Three strikes" means you've been found guilty three times.

You're thinking of American three-strikes laws against things like drugs.

Three-strikes in the sense of internet does NOT mean you've been found guilty three times. It means you've been accused three times. The content creators say you did it, therefore you did it, and you have a strike against you. This entire process is carried out outside the court system, and at no point do the content creators have to present any evidence to anyone.

Actually, it's not the content creators, but the company that bought the rights from the content creators... usually for a small percentage of what they're actually worth.

Read the communiqué at La Quadrature linked from this article. Run it through a translator if you must. But note the mention of a NEW FRENCH LAW called LOPPSI2 that's going to introduce legislated content filtering on the Internet. As they say, celebrate but don't let your guard down. Sarkozy and Albanel aren't out yet.

It was 6PM in Paris when I learnt that HADOPI was censored by the Conseil Constitutionnel.It was the best moment of my day.Last year, Sarkozy spent his holidays in the USA. If he comes back this year, could you please keep him for the three next years he's supposed to be our president ? Please...

originally posted by: Nate AndersonBetter known as the "three strikes" law

Actually it's better known as Hadopi.

If pedantry is your thing, you should (as Nate did in the article) capitalize the letters of an acronym. What's a Hadopi?

quote:

originally posted by Fairly

quote:

originally posted by: Nate AndersonChristina Albanel

I think her name is Christine?

You know what her name is. Neat trick with the rhetorical question though.

quote:

originally posted by Fairly

quote:

originally posted by: Jack_oI have a new found respect for France now.

Easy! They're also the country that proposed the law. France has a long history - dating back to 1535 IIRC - of being one of the most repressive countries in this regard.

What, by submitting to the demands of "Big Content" as they pertain to copyright enforcement? For 500 years?

quote:

originally posted by Fairly

quote:

originally posted by: xeromist'Pass my law or I'm quitting'???? What kind of childish twit do they have in office over there?

Her name is Christine Albanel. She's the one crafted the monster. Look her up on Wiki.

Incidentally, her wiki does little more than explain where she was born, her current title, and that she proposed HADOPI.

quote:

originally posted by Fairly

quote:

originally posted by: GlassyTells you who she's bought by.

She's been into that stuff for a long time. Look her up on Wiki.

Again, it doesn't say much.

quote:

originally posted by Fairly

quote:

originally posted by: mujadaddyThat really ought to read "Le Fail"..

I thought that other comment was the dumbest I'd ever seen.

Then you are ignorant of internet culture or overly sensitive.

If you're going to respond to more than one poster in a single post, use quote tags for proper attribution. Also, if you're going to nitpick an entire thread’s worth of posts, try not to come off like a knob. If that's even possible.

Also, let me just say a quick "suck it" to HADOPI and the content industry in general.

I'm glad a French governmental institution ruled on this. Much as I despise the law, I'm just too American to support the concept of a European Parliament. Call me an ignorant hillbilly, but I can't see how being ruled by officials you did not elect (even in the minor way that the European Parliament *rules* over the member countries of the EU) should in any way be tolerated by a government that is supposedly democratic. If the member states of the EU want to form one giant country with each of its current members becoming provinces/states, fine. Go ahead. If they want to become a confederacy, fine, go ahead. Hell, if they want to become one glorious benevolent fascist state, go ahead. But make up your minds before adding some external government that is fundamentally at odds with your real system of government.

Originally posted by thenino85:I'm glad a French governmental institution ruled on this. Much as I despise the law, I'm just too American to support the concept of a European Parliament. Call me an ignorant hillbilly, but I can't see how being ruled by officials you did not elect (even in the minor way that the European Parliament *rules* over the member countries of the EU) should in any way be tolerated by a government that is supposedly democratic. If the member states of the EU want to form one giant country with each of its current members becoming provinces/states, fine. Go ahead. If they want to become a confederacy, fine, go ahead. Hell, if they want to become one glorious benevolent fascist state, go ahead. But make up your minds before adding some external government that is fundamentally at odds with your real system of government.

While you are misunderstanding EU power structures - and Parliament in particular - as a European I agree with your general sentiment.

Parliament is actually democratically elected - it's very close to the American House of Representatives. The problem is that they have almost no power. There are some laws/proposals they can oppose and keep from being passed (at least until they tire and give up) assuming enough members from wildly different countries and cultures - and with vastly different agendas - can agree to oppose something. It happens - rarely.

The problem is the EU Commission - which is NOT democratically elected, and which actually has all the power. It's like a smaller version of the Senate - one senator oversees each department, and exerts massive influence. And they are chosen by the various governments - so their only democratic credibility is about 3 times removed from actual elections. In other words they are bureaucrats and EU is more or less a bureaucracy - not a democracy.

So yeah - while I have some opinions on whether Europe should federalize, make a confederacy or a fascist state (hint: They should do none of those things), I agree with the sentiment about at least being honest about WTF they actually want to do instead of trying to make a government that is totally at odds with basic cultural values in almost all states, and try to cover up the truth and pretend it's not what they do.

Some sort of pokemon with music-based attacks, I'm guessing. Details on 4chan at 11.

Good news, but:

quote:

Originally posted by Fairly:Read the communiqué at La Quadrature linked from this article. Run it through a translator if you must. But note the mention of a NEW FRENCH LAW called LOPPSI2 that's going to introduce legislated content filtering on the Internet. As they say, celebrate but don't let your guard down. Sarkozy and Albanel aren't out yet.

You know, sometimes lawyers and the courts do good things and deserve praise, and this is one of those times. Although to be pleasantly surprised by this is an indication of how our systems are quite imperfect!

Originally posted by infernal666:I love how Big Content only paid off 1 of the 2 government entities they needed. Seriously,didn't they realize that when you buy a new law you also need to buy the judges to go with it?